Figure 1. Albert Einstein
A Third Tribute To Albert Einstein:
Q1. Prof. Santilli, could you please review in a language accessible to the general audience Einstein's 1935 historical prediction that quantum mechanics and, therefore, quantum chemistry are incomplete theories
A1. Einstein did not accept the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, namely, the impossibility to identify the position of a particle with classical precision. For that reason, he made his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is an "incomplete theory," in the sense that it could be broadened into such a form to recover classical determinism at least under special conditions. The same argument evidently applies to quantum chemistry.
Q2. We understand that you proved Einstein's vision in physics.
A2. Yes, as reported in your preceding interview, I provided three physical broadening of quantum mechanics along Einstein's vision, the first was done by including irreversibility over time of energy releasing processes, the second was done via the representation of particles as they are in the physical reality (extended, deformable and hyperdense), and the third was done via the use of a suitable mathematics showing the existence of the so-called 'hidden variables' in quantum axioms, such as those for spin and angular momentum. I also provided examples of particle pairs whose mutual distance recovers indeed classical determinism under extreme conditions, as predicted by Einstein.
Q3. Are you claiming to have proved Einstein's vision also in chemistry?
A3. Einstein's vision on the lack of final character of quantum mechanics has implications for all of 20th century sciences. Therefore, the lack of confirmation of Einstein's argument in chemistry would imply the lack of actual achievement of Einstein's vision.
Q4. Can you please outline the main aspect of the confirmation in chemistry?
A4. With the understanding that quantum chemistry did achieve historical advances, I did not accept quantum chemistry as being a final theory since my graduate studies at the University of Torino, Italy, in the mid 1960s, because of a truly fundamental insufficiency, namely, the inability by quantum chemistry to identify the attractive force bonding together atoms into molecules. Consider for simplicity the hydrogen molecule H2 at absolute zero degree temperature. When the two electrons move in independent orbits (Figure 1), the hydrogen molecule cannot exist due to the absence of any possible bond. In fact, the two hydrogen atoms are bonded into H2 by the bond between the two valence electrons with antiparallel spin. By following Einstein,, I could not consider quantum chemistry to be a complete theory because according to the basic axioms of quantum chemistry, valence electrons should 'repel' each other due to their equal charge, without any known possibility of admitting their attraction (Figure 2). There was no doubt in my mind that the understanding of the attractive force between valence electrons required a 'completion' of quantum chemistry precisely along Einstein's vision. Following decades of research including contributions by various colleagues, quantum chemistry was completed into a covering theory known as hadronic chemistry; the attractive force between valence electrons was clearly identified; and the 'completed' theory was proved to verify molecular experimental data..
Q5. Can you please outline the main steps of the indicated achievements?
A5. I had to accept the chemical evidence establishing the existence of a strongly attractive force between valence electron pairs. This can only occur via a new interaction not representable with quantum chemistry which interaction can only be non derivable from a potential. In turn, the representation of the new attractive force could only be done by 'completing' quantum chemistry into a broader theory.
Q6. How did you achieve the needed 'completion' of quantum chemistry?
A6. I accepted the evidence hat valence electrons are not point -particles as represented by quantum chemistry (Figures 1 and 2), because they are characterized by wavepackets as big as nuclei. I also accepted the experimental evidence that the wavepackets of valence electrons are in conditions of deep mutual penetration (Figure 3). This allowed me to identify the new force as being of contact type, thus not being derivable from a potential.
Q7. How did you develop these ideas into a viable 'completion' of quantum chemistry?
A7. The biggest difficulty was mathematical, rather than chemical, because the mathematics of quantum chemistry can only represent potential forces between point particles. A mathematics for the representation of non-potential forces between extended valence electrons did not exist and, therefore, had to be built. When I was at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University inn the late 1970s under DOE support, I proposed a new mathematics based on the generalization of all products AB between arbitrary quantities A, B, into the form A*B = ATB called 'isotopic' in the sense of being axiom-preserving, where T represents precisely the new non-potential forces (see my 1978 monographs with Springer-Verlag Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics, particularly Volume II). This allowed Einstein's 'completion' ofd the mathematical structure of quantum chemistry into a form admitting the d new forces. Applications and verifications could only be done thereafter.
Q8. Please outline the main chemical aspects with links to technical publication for interested chemists.
A8. The new forces were first identified in physics and verified with the representation of the synthesis of mesons (see Section 5 of the 1978 Harvard paper). Following that, In collaboration with the University of Cambridge Ph. D. physicist A. O. E. Animalu, we applied the new mathematics to the representation of the attractive force between the identical electrons of the Cooper pair in superconductivity (see the 1985 paper). In view of encouraging results in superconductivity, I conducted systematic studies that lead to the first and only known 'attractive' force between a valence electrons pair in molecular structures nowadays known as the isoelectronium (see the 2001 monograph Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, see also the independent reviews by V. M. Tandge, and by E. Trell). In collaboration with the chemist Don D. Shillady of Virginia Commonwealth University, we proved that the 'completion' of quantum l molecular models into the form admitting an explicitly attractive force between valence electron pairs permitted the first known exact representation of experimental data of the hydrogen molecule, and of the water molecule.
Q9. Could you please indicate how the representation of the hydrogen molecule according to Figure 3 verifies Einstein's argument?
A9. When the two valence electrons have independent orbits as in Figure 1, quantum mechanics is exactly valid and so is the uncertainty principle, namely. it is impossible to identify with classical precision their mutual distance. By contrast, when the two valence electrons are represented as extended particles in conditions of deep mutual penetration with ensuing non-potential forces as in Figure 3. the mathematics (let alone the physics) underlying the uncertainty principle is inapplicable (see Post 10 of the preceding interview), and the mutual distance between the two valence electrons approaches classical determinism.
Q10. Does the academic community admit the lack of an actual bond in the hydrogen molecule according to quantum chemistry?
A10. No. The indicated insufficiency is one of several best kept secrets in the best graduate schools in chemistry around the globe.
Q11. Can you indicate the reaction by chemists to your achievement of an explicitly attractive force between valence electrons?
A11. With due exceptions, the reaction by chemists has generally been that of extreme repulsion because, in academia, basic novelty is an enemy to be assassinated at whatever cost. But I believe that such a negative reaction is a rather normal part of the scientific process for basically new vistas because, sooner or later, scientific evidence always emerges.
Dear Editors, please ask Prof. Santilli how he achieved an attractive force between identical valence electrons. An outline for non-experts would be appreciated. Vdr39yu
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 1, thanks for the important question. The isoelectronium is studied in details in Chapter 4 of Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry. The subsequent chapters provide verifications with molecular experimental data for the hydrogen and water molecules. Here is a rudimentary outline. After years of trials and failures with conventional methods, I had to conclude that there is no possibility to achieve an attractive force between identical electrons via the use of the Schroedinger equation of quantum chemistry,
where H is the Hamiltonian of the valence electron pair as the sum of the kinetic energy K and the repulsive potential energy V. I achieved the needed attractive force via the use of the covering iso-schroedinger equation of hadronic chemistry
where H represents the conventional Coulomb interaction and T represents the new non-Hamiltonian interaction. Out of a variety of solutions, the simplest one occurs for (see. Eq. (4.7), loc, cit.)
where b = 1/rhh is the inverse of the 'hadronic horizon' rhh (the radius after which quantum mechanics is recovered identically because particles return to have sole potential interactions). Additional simple calculations via the use of Eq. (2) yield
where m is the mass of an electron.The following points are then important for the plausibility of the model:
1) The attractive Hulten potential behaves like the Coulomb one at short distance, thus absorbing the repulsive Coulomb potential in Eq. (5) resulting in the desired attraction with a mere re-definition of the Hulten constant Q.
2) As it is well known, the Hulten potential has a finite number of energy states. Hence, there can only exist a finite number of isoelectronia.
where A and B are positive quantities depending on various local values, see for details Eq.s (5,15) page 171 of [loc. cit.].
3) The application of the model, which i did with Don Shillady, to the representation of the experimental data of the hydrogen molecule, and of the water molecule yields numerical values of the A and B quantities, in particular, the value B = 1 under which spectrum (7) is reduced to one single value for n = 1. Therefore, the isoelectronium can assume one and only one configuration.
A few words of caution are now in order. The isoelectronium can only be formulated via hadronic chemistry and its underlying new isomathematics. The lack of knowledge of these methods generally results in inconsistencies that often remain unknown to users of conventional methods In fact, rudimentary Eqs. (2) to (7) are expressed via conventional mathematics but they are the projection of the actual equations on isospaces over isofields.
For instance, for the correct formulation of Eq. (2), coordinates r have to be isocoordinates r* - rU, where U is the isounit, U = 1/T; momenta p have to be isomomenta p* formulated via the isodifferential calculus; the Hamiltonian and other operators have to be isooperators defined on an iso-Hilbert isospace over the isofield of isocomplex isonumbers, etc. My suggestion is to understand first the mechanism for achieving the needed attractive forces between identical electrons and then pass to its rigorous formulation. Best wishes. Ruggero M. Santilli (Email: email@example.com).
Prof. Santilli, please indicate how the isoelectronium constitutes a verification of the EPR argument. Thanks. Lwe29ty
Lwe29ty - Post 3, I am glad to see that this open exchange does indeed stimulate important questions. Here is my view. When the electrons are represented as point-like particles, quantum mechanics applies, and the EPR argument is inapplicable. However, when the electrons are represented with extended wavepackets in condition of mutual penetration, the sole existence of one energy level of the Hulten spectrum, Post 2, their mutual distance (see Figure 6) can only have one value, such as 10-15 cm, thus recovering classical determinism in clinet with Einstein's vision. Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email: firstname.lastname@example.org).
Prof. Santilli, thank you for the clear outline of Post 2 and congrats for a rather difficult achievement. I would appreciate more details on the structure of the isoelectronium, for instance, how you handle the non-linear interactions of hadronic chemistry clearly expressed in Eq. (2). Vdr39yu
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 5, I appreciate your interest. You are sharp in seeing that a most crucial aspect of Eq. (2) is its non-linearity in the wavefunction ψ* . It should be recalled here that non-linear equations in quantum chemistry
violates the superposition principle, thus preventing the decomposition of the wavefunction ψ of the isoelectronium into those of the two valence electrons,
This insufficiency prevents the identification of the characteristics of the constituents of a bound state with non-linear interactions (in our case, the valence electrons when members of a valence bond). This and other limitations have caused the general lack ion consideration of non-linear interactions in quantum chemistry.
A reason I could not accept quantum chemistry as a final theory is that it is linear in the wavefunction, while chemical reality is expected to be non-linear, particularly in the case of deep mutual penetration of the wavepackets in valence bonds where interactions are non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian. Isomathematics was constructed in such a way to reconstruct linearity on isospaces over isofields. In fact, when you go to the abstract level, the non-linear isoproduct H(r, p)T(ψ*,...)ψ* can be written in the isolinear form , H(r, p) × ψ*, namely, a form which is linear on isospaces over isofields, but its projection tin on conventional spaces over conventional fields is non-linear. This is due to the fact that all non-linear terms are embedded in the isounit I(ψ*,...) =1/T(ψ*,...) > 0 that, being positive-definite, is topologically equivalent to the conventional unit "1", thus explaining why non-linearity disappear at the abstract level. I hope these comments have been of assistance in your study of a basic aspect in the search of new advances. Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email; email@example.com).
Prof. Santilli, hoping not to abuse your courtesy and time, please provide some information on the structure of the isoelectronium, such as the characteristics of the valence electrons when members of the isoelectroniumc. Vdr39yu<.p>
Hello Vdr39yu - Post 7, thanks for an additional quite important question. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the structure of the isoelectronium is rather limited because I was satisfied by the fact that the isoelectronium as a quasi-particle allowed an exact representation if molecular data that could only be approximately represented with quantum chemistry. However, most of the research done for the constituents in the synthesis of the neutron from the proton and the electron applies to the constituents of the isoelectronium. Here are a few comments.
In view of the indicated mutations, the constituents of the isoelectronium are not conventional electrons, but new particles called isoelectrons defined as isounitary isoirreducible isorepresentations of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry on the the iso-Hilbert space over isofields, see the 1995 monograph Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume II. As far as I can see, the spin and magnetic moment of the isoelectrons in the isoelectronium have conventional values, but I expect a mutation of their charge because potentially necessary to turn a Coulomb repulsion into an attraction. Hence the identical isoelectrons constituting the isoelectronium can be identified rather accurately via the isoirrep of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry under the subsidiary constraints of recovering chemical molecular data. Sincerely, Ruggero Maria Santilli (Email: firstname.lastname@example.org).Post 9
I studied Santilli's monograph on hadronic chemistry as well as his paper with Shillady, and my understanding is that the rest energy of the isoelectronium is not precisely known. This is due to the fact that: the sum of the rest energy of the two electron in vacuum is 1.022 MeV; binding energy (7) is very close to zero (for B = 1, n = 1, | E| = 0) because it is the binding energy caused by a "contact" interaction "not" derivable by a potential; and the contribution to the rest energy of the isoelectronium caused by the potential Coulomb interaction - at the risk of saying a "betise" - should give an "excess rest energy" over the value 1.022 MeV, since the interaction is repulsive (the contribution would be a routine mass defect in the event of an attraction). In any case, when compared to the stuffiness of orthodox chemistry, this is a quiet cool and refreshing problem indeed! Thank you, Santilli for peeking deep into nature. Swe57wo
I Nominated Prof. Santilli for the Nobel Prize in Physics for his proof of the EPR argument, Post 13 of the preceding interview http://www.galileoprincipia.org/santilli-confirmation-of-the-epr-argument.php. After reading this interview and studying the related technical literature, I have Nominated Prof. Santilli also for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry hoping that he will be the second Nobel Laureate in both Physics and Chemistry after Madame Curie. Xer22uu
Dear Prof. Santilli. You write: After years of trials and failures with conventional methods, I had to conclude that there is no possibility to achieve an attractive force between identical electrons via the use of the Schroedinger equation of quantum chemistry. Your approach consists in modifying the wave equation in such a way that you get the required results. It is the same approach followed by QCD. The problem with that kind of procedure is that the relation between theory and physical reality becomes more and more disconnected. I came to the conclusion that the crux of our model has its origin in the representation of particles in general. Representing particles as isolated entities in space makes it very difficult to explain interaction between them. My approach represents subatomic particles (SPs) as focal points of rays of Fundamental Particles (FPs) that extent from infinite to infinite. The energy of subatomic particles is distributed on their FPs as rotations defining longitudinal and transversal angular momenta. The interaction between SPs is the product of the interactions of the angular momenta of their FPs. One important conclusion is that electrons and positrons neither attract nor repel each other with the distance between them tending to zero. The nucleons can so be seen as a swarm of electrons and positrons and so the atomic nuclei. If the non-Hamiltonian interaction can be associated with the nucleus as a swarm of electrons and positrons,a physical explanation would support your mathematical approach. Dwe89pe
Dear Dwe89pe / Post 12, I tried to reach Prof. Santilli for comments but he is out of contact for travel. Allow me to ex press my view and experience. I am so glad to see that you have been initially attracted by the 20th century scientific trap, pass to QFT whenever you have problems, but then you have identify its limitations. They are so many to justify the words "scientific trap." You pass from equations admitting analytic solution. to non-linear equations that can be manipulated at will. Then you have these divergencies so strenuously opposed by Paul Dirac for which "numerical results" are fake. Etc. I received copy of a momentous exchange back in 2007. Following the publication at Nuovo Cimento of Prof. santilli 50 years of work on the Lie-admissible generalization of QM to represent time irreversible systems, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs//Lie-admiss-NCB-I.pdf an academic guru contacted Prof. Santilli claiming that the Lie-admissible generalization is not necessary since QFT can represent time irreversibility (sic!!), how?, via the usual fake science, you throw here a Green distribution with arbitrary parameter and forma factors manipulated 'ad hoc', etc. You should see the river of disqualification provide by Prof. Santilli against this academician. Tye biggest problem of the 20th century physics you touch - but do not identify fully - is the representation of particles as point in vacuum, hence solely admitting potential interactions. the problem for the 20th century science is that, as stated by Prof. Santilli: The actual size of the wavepacket of one electron is as big as the entire universe, this implying that the universe is one single interconnected body characterized by an extremely large number of entanglements of wavefunctions whose sole communication is that of contact, non-linear, non-local and non-Hamiltonian interactions that can be solely treated via a generalizations of 20th century applied mathematics such as isomathematics. .. The entanglement of electron pairs becomes detectable by our limited instruments only at 1 Fermi distances, at which identical valence electrons can indeed bond to each other when in singlet coupling, resulting in the birth of molecules. I think you see everything in this statement, i.e., the need to: represent particles/wavepackets as extended; the need to admit in their overlapping the most general known non-Hamiltonian interactions; and the need for their serious treatment via a generalization of 20th century mathematics beginning most importantly with generalization of Newton's differential calculus from points to volumes http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-37.pdf What you should do to write a truye page of new physics is to construct the hadronic field theory (HFT) because its foundations are the corerct one for extended particles, you will have no divergencies and see the quantum plane below from a much toller mointain, etc.ood luck Swe37ro
I always thought that the measurement of the prediction by Bell proved that the quantum reality CANNOT be described by a theory with hidden variables and thus the theory of quantum mechanics is really as ``weird as the reality''. Can the author comment on whether his theory is in agreement with Bell inequalities? Nsd57ao
Dear Nsd57ao // Post 14, thank you for your question. For the answer, please inspect the quoted preceding interview. You will see there that Prof. Santilli confirmed the full validity of Bell's inequality for point-particles in vacuum under sole potential interactions, while confirmed Einstein's vision that classical determinism is recovered for extended particles within physical media under non-linear, non-local and non-potential interactions. To technically understand the proof available in the 1998 paper
R. M. Santilli, "Isorepresentation of the Lie-isotopic SU(2) Algebra with Application to Nuclear Physics and Local Realism," Acta Applicandae Mathematicae Vol. 50, 177 (1998), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-27.pdf
you need to study the Lie-Santilli isotheory from the quoted literature. Above all, Prof. Santilli follows Einstein's main view namely, that quantum mechanics is indeed fully valid under the conditions implemented in its basic axioms (point particles in vacuum), but the belief that quantum mechanics describes all possible conditions existing in the universe is non-scientific, hence the need for its 'completion.' Best wishes. Fwe12io
I am fascinated by Prof. Santilli's new isomathematics because of its capability of clearly representing in a concretely the actual size, shape and density of particles under the most general known interactions, see the preceding interview, particularly Post 8 and ffg in the comments. In Eq (6) of that post have seen the only representation I know of nuclei as a collection of "extended" nucleons. No wonder Prof. Santilli has achieved the first known exact representation of the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen as occurring in the core of stars, nuclear magnetic moments, nuclear spins and other nuclear data quantum mechanics has been unable to represent in one century.. Good job, Prof. Santilli. Bdf26yu
Prof. Santilli, after reading your potentially historical paper http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-27.pdf I would like one of my graduate students do his Ph. D. Thesis on the completion of quantum mechanics into hadronic mechanics and its applications. Could you please recommend a list of primary mathematical, theoretical and experimental references and perhaps be part of the committee? Thanks Mrt89p
I believe that Santilli does not understand the current dominant view of covalence bonds that has worked so well for about one century. I do not see the value of this scientific fuzz of new mathematics and new chemistry. What's their benefits? Ker28fg